Thread Derails... Aids, Popes And Condoms

[philbo]

[quote name='Socrates' date='13 January 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1263339861' post='2035651']
Blaming the Pope for the AIDS epidemic in Africa is utterly ridiculous.
[/quote]
Nobody is blaming the Pope for the AIDS epidemic. What is it with you people here, can you only deal in absolutes?

[quote name='Socrates' date='13 January 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1263339861' post='2035651']
If people in Africa were actually listening to the Pope and Church teachings, they wouldn't be fornicating, committing adultery, and engaging in prostitution and sodomy with reckless abandon.
If such behavior was discontinued, and chastity practiced, in accord with the Church's constant moral teaching, you can guarantee the spread of AIDS would be drastically reduced.
[/quote]
So, as I said to Havoc - Would I be right in summarizing your arguments as being: "if you insiston being immoral and having sex outside marriage, then we want you tocatch a life-threatening illness so you can join your fellowfornicators in Hell as soon as possible"?

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 04:53 AM' timestamp='1263376419' post='2036035']
Nobody is blaming the Pope for the AIDS epidemic. What is it with you people here, can you only deal in absolutes?
[/quote]
The internet has reached the red zone for irony and will need to open its reserve holding tanks, now.

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1263389927' post='2036093']
The internet has reached the red zone for irony and will need to open its reserve holding tanks, now.
[/quote]
Has anybody, ever, said "The Pope is to blame for the AIDS epidemic"?

I'm trying to work out whether you're a naturally obnoxious type who enjoys trying to wind people up, or you really do think only in black and white.

..edit to add: well, it seems you're not the only one. The only hit on google for the exact phrase "The Pope is to blame for the AIDS epidemic" turns out to be someone misquoting Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. Somehow that seems vaguely ironic.

Edited January 13, 2010 by philbo

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 10:31 AM' timestamp='1263396687' post='2036148']
Has anybody, ever, said "The Pope is to blame for the AIDS epidemic"?

I'm trying to work out whether you're a naturally obnoxious type who enjoys trying to wind people up, or you really do think only in black and white.

..edit to add: well, it seems you're not the only one. The only hit on google for the exact phrase "The Pope is to blame for the AIDS epidemic" turns out to be someone misquoting Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. Somehow that seems vaguely ironic.
[/quote]
No, I just think it's funny you generalise whilst complaining about generalisation.

Things are black and white--it's our limited perception that views shades of grey.

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1263407042' post='2036254']
No, I just think it's funny you generalise whilst complaining about generalisation.
[/quote]
I see it more as me making a generalization along the lines of "not all birds are robins", and you coming back with "so you're saying no birds are robins". I'm not complaining about generalization, I'm complaining about almost everything I post being (intentionally?) misrepresented.

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1263407042' post='2036254']
Things are black and white--it's our limited perception that views shades of grey.
[/quote]
On the contrary: everything exists in shades of grey, it's a fiddler on perception that turns them to black and white.

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1263411721' post='2036324']
I see it more as me making a generalization along the lines of "not all birds are robins", and you coming back with "so you're saying no birds are robins". I'm not complaining about generalization, I'm complaining about almost everything I post being (intentionally?) misrepresented.[/quote]
Now you're ascribing intent to the others. I feel perfectly comfortable with people accusing me of being crappy, but there are some people here who aren't burnt out and they aren't misrepresenting you on purpose.

[quote]
On the contrary: everything exists in shades of grey, it's a fiddler on perception that turns them to black and white.
[/quote]
The model of the Cave, which is the best explanation for perception of Truth vs. Truth disagrees with this. And so does life experience. If one kills another, one either committed murder or one did not. Our perception may deprive us of the knowledge of the nature of the act, but it remains that it was either murder or not.

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1263414021' post='2036369']
Now you're ascribing intent to the others. I feel perfectly comfortable with people accusing me of being crappy, but there are some people here who aren't burnt out and they aren't misrepresenting you on purpose.
[/quote]
That's kind of why I stuck the "intentionally?" in brackets with a question mark... at least, when I'm positing the possibility of intent, I'm open about it.

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1263414021' post='2036369']
The model of the Cave, which is the best explanation for perception of Truth vs. Truth disagrees with this. And so does life experience. If one kills another, one either committed murder or one did not. Our perception may deprive us of the knowledge of the nature of the act, but it remains that it was either murder or not.
[/quote]
On the subject of thread derails...

"murder" has a precise definition, involving intent and a knowledge that ones actions are likely to cause the death of another; being certain that something is murder, on the other hand, requires knowledge of the killer's brain and state of mind.. things of which even the killer may not be consciously aware. So even for something as clearly-defined as murder, it is not always possible to be certain that an act was - so we're operating in a world where even where there are black-and-white absolutes, we can only operate with shades of grey, probability and "reasonable doubt".

PS Why does the word "foxtrot india lima tango echo romeo" change to "fiddler"?

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1263415265' post='2036386']
That's kind of why I stuck the "intentionally?" in brackets with a question mark... at least, when I'm positing the possibility of intent, I'm open about it.[/quote]
Fair enough.

[quote]
On the subject of thread derails...

"murder" has a precise definition, involving intent and a knowledge that ones actions are likely to cause the death of another; being certain that something is murder, on the other hand, requires knowledge of the killer's brain and state of mind.. things of which even the killer may not be consciously aware. So even for something as clearly-defined as murder, it is not always possible to be certain that an act was - so we're operating in a world where even where there are black-and-white absolutes, we can only operate with shades of grey, probability and "reasonable doubt".
[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]
PS Why does the word "foxtrot india lima tango echo romeo" change to "fiddler"?
[/quote]
The fiddler does it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 04:53 AM' timestamp='1263376419' post='2036035']
Nobody is blaming the Pope for the AIDS epidemic. What is it with you people here, can you only deal in absolutes?[/quote]
I have in fact seen opinion articles outright accusing the Pope of "genocide" (no joke!) for not endorsing condoms in Africa. No, you didn't post any such accusations yourself, but I thought perhaps this thread might have been spurred by such material.
It's heartening that at you at least apparently agree with me as to the asinine silliness of such charges.


[quote]So, as I said to Havoc - Would I be right in summarizing your arguments as being: "if you insiston being immoral and having sex outside marriage, then we want you tocatch a life-threatening illness so you can join your fellowfornicators in Hell as soon as possible"?
[/quote]
Of course not.
The argument would be not to commit immoral acts in the first place, and thus avoid both hell and life-threatening diseases. Condom-use is additionally immoral insofar as it deliberately blocks the procreation of life in the sexual act.
(However, it seems you have little interest in actually understanding Catholic moral teaching, but instead wish only to mock it.)
If you're thinking in terms of "if I commit such and such mortally sinful act, should I then do A or B?" you're already on the wrong path morally.
The Pope simply teaches what actions are moral and immoral. He can't force anyone whether to follow. We should always make the moral choice (though this is indeed impossible for all of us without God's grace).

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 04:46 AM' timestamp='1263376009' post='2036033']

Where have I attacked the Catholic church? Disagreeing with church policy on condoms isn't attacking the Catholic church. [/quote]
The Church's stance on morality isn't a policy, really. Policies of the Church are more like the dates of celebrations, vows of celibacy, liturgical colors. Those are referred to as disciplines, which are meant to best convey the teachings of the Church which can never change. So attacking a moral stance of the Church is attacking the Church.

[Sirklawd]

Promiscuity is the problem. Condoms may prevent the spread of the std in a single act, but they promote more and more of the act. A condom's single purpose is to prevent conception. This removes responsibility from the sexual act and opens the door to promiscuity. Free orgasm? [i]WHY NOT?![/i] You cant prevent stds and promote free sex. It doesnt work. Promiscuity changes a society. It creates a society that is inherently self-centered.

This is what the pope said. And this is what the docu-dump said is being proved. Did anyone who disagrees with the pope actually read it?

I think people dislike the pope's teaching because it's just as critical of western civilization as it is of africa.

[Winchester]

Sinful nature is the problem--promiscuity is a symptom.

[philbo]

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 January 2010 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1263492747' post='2037028']
I have in fact seen opinion articles outright accusing the Pope of "genocide" (no joke!) for not endorsing condoms in Africa. No, you didn't post any such accusations yourself, but I thought perhaps this thread might have been spurred by such material.
It's heartening that at you at least apparently agree with me as to the asinine silliness of such charges.[/quote]

I agree that charges of "genocide" are ridiculous - his stance doesn't help, but hyperbole like that are a little bit OTT



[quote name='Socrates' date='14 January 2010 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1263492747' post='2037028']
The argument would be not to commit immoral acts in the first place, and thus avoid both hell and life-threatening diseases.  Condom-use is additionally immoral insofar as it deliberately blocks the procreation of life in the sexual act.
(However, it seems you have little interest in actually understanding Catholic moral teaching, but instead wish only to mock it.)
If you're thinking in terms of "if I commit such and such mortally sinful act, should I then do A or B?" you're already on the wrong path morally.
The Pope simply teaches what actions are moral and immoral.  He can't force anyone whether to follow.  We should always make the moral choice (though this is indeed impossible for all of us without God's grace).
[/quote]
I'm not thinking "if I commit such an act", because I'm married (for an inordinately long time now) and have never had sex outside that marriage.. not because I consider it a sin, but, well, just "because" I suppose.  But I don't go judging others, and I don't believe in moral absolutes that condemn people for doing exactly the same sorts of things as people in their culture have been doing since before there was a Catholic Church.  To be honest, I find the whole "it's sinful because we say it is" attitude really rather arrogant and repugnant... but then, that's probably because I don't have the underlying acceptance of a godly authority.

[quote name='Winchester' date='14 January 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1263502721' post='2037138']
So attacking a moral stance of the Church is attacking the Church.
[/quote]
I suppose that's an inherent problem with declaring your pontiff "infallible".  But when he gets it so wrong (such as the stance on condoms), to be honest the Church just looks an ass.  It also makes debate pretty much impossible, if any statement pointing out the inhumanity of the Church's moral stance is taken as an attack on the whole institution.

You might just as well say "we want all you fornicators to burn in Hell as soon as possible", and at least be honest about it.

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='14 January 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1263505492' post='2037153']
Promiscuity is the problem. Condoms may prevent the spread of the std in a single act, but they promote more and more of the act.[/quote]

If you can provide evidence that condoms promote more and more of that act, I'd be interested to see it: the problems with AIDS in Africa is that people are already having (lots of) promiscuous sex *without* condoms.  Suggesting that condoms will cause more sex is unsupported and almost definitely inaccurate (please note I'm talking about sub-Saharan Africa where AIDS is rife - I don't want to get distracted onto a European/American debate right now).

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='14 January 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1263505492' post='2037153']
A condom's single purpose is to prevent conception. This removes responsibility from the sexual act and opens the door to promiscuity. Free orgasm? [i]WHY NOT?![/i] You cant prevent stds and promote free sex. It doesnt work. Promiscuity changes a society. It creates a society that is inherently self-centered.[/quote]


A condom, when STDs are rife, is not solely to prevent contraception.  And even if it were, the world's population is expanding so quickly that preventing contraception is a good idea.  Free orgasm?  Isn't that what hands and internet porn are for?

"Creates a society that is inherently self-centred"?  I'd say advertising does a better job of that, personally.

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='14 January 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1263505492' post='2037153']
This is what the pope said. And this is what the docu-dump said is being proved. Did anyone who disagrees with the pope actually read it?

I think people dislike the pope's teaching because it's just as critical of western civilization as it is of africa.
[/quote]

I dislike the Pope's teaching because it's founded in a world as he'd like it to be, where people are celibate outside marriage and faithful within it.. which isn't a world that actually exists at the moment.  He's not going to change promiscuity in AIDS-rife areas by talking about sin, and if the best weapon against the spread of AIDS is to wear a barrier during sex then either he should realize what is best for the uninfected population is at the very least to have some protection; or he sticks unflinchingly to dogma and presumably accepts the inevitable consequence that millions more will be infected and die.



[quote name='Winchester' date='14 January 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1263505789' post='2037156']
Sinful nature is the problem--promiscuity is a symptom.
[/quote]
But if mankind is inherently sinful, and promiscuity is a symptom of that sinful nature, surely the "Christian" thing to do would be to help rather than just preach?

[havok579257]

[quote name='philbo' date='14 January 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1263513183' post='2037241']
I agree that charges of "genocide" are ridiculous - his stance doesn't help, but hyperbole like that are a little bit OTT




I'm not thinking "if I commit such an act", because I'm married (for an inordinately long time now) and have never had sex outside that marriage.. not because I consider it a sin, but, well, just "because" I suppose.  But I don't go judging others, and I don't believe in moral absolutes that condemn people for doing exactly the same sorts of things as people in their culture have been doing since before there was a Catholic Church.  To be honest, I find the whole "it's sinful because we say it is" attitude really rather arrogant and repugnant... but then, that's probably because I don't have the underlying acceptance of a godly authority.


I suppose that's an inherent problem with declaring your pontiff "infallible".  But when he gets it so wrong (such as the stance on condoms), to be honest the Church just looks an ass.  It also makes debate pretty much impossible, if any statement pointing out the inhumanity of the Church's moral stance is taken as an attack on the whole institution.

You might just as well say "we want all you fornicators to burn in Hell as soon as possible", and at least be honest about it.



If you can provide evidence that condoms promote more and more of that act, I'd be interested to see it: the problems with AIDS in Africa is that people are already having (lots of) promiscuous sex *without* condoms.  Suggesting that condoms will cause more sex is unsupported and almost definitely inaccurate (please note I'm talking about sub-Saharan Africa where AIDS is rife - I don't want to get distracted onto a European/American debate right now).




A condom, when STDs are rife, is not solely to prevent contraception.  And even if it were, the world's population is expanding so quickly that preventing contraception is a good idea.  Free orgasm?  Isn't that what hands and internet porn are for?

"Creates a society that is inherently self-centred"?  I'd say advertising does a better job of that, personally.



I dislike the Pope's teaching because it's founded in a world as he'd like it to be, where people are celibate outside marriage and faithful within it.. which isn't a world that actually exists at the moment.  He's not going to change promiscuity in AIDS-rife areas by talking about sin, and if the best weapon against the spread of AIDS is to wear a barrier during sex then either he should realize what is best for the uninfected population is at the very least to have some protection; or he sticks unflinchingly to dogma and presumably accepts the inevitable consequence that millions more will be infected and die.




But if mankind is inherently sinful, and promiscuity is a symptom of that sinful nature, surely the "Christian" thing to do would be to help rather than just preach?
[/quote]


further proof you don't care about anything any of us say or what the church teaches, because once again you come off as the athiest who wants to ATTACk, yes ATTACk the catholic church without even understanding it. You obviously have no idea about the catholic church and what it teaches except what you know from other athiests. Cause its evident you have no clue what papal infallability is. The pope is not infallible 24/7. What the pope said about condoms in africa was not an infallible teaching. You come on here and bash the church yet you haven't even bothered to understand its most basic foundations. And you see why I stereotype athiests. Cause you just proved all the stereotypes right.

Please either learn something about the catholic church from someone who is catholic and not anti-catholic or stop attack the church for things IT DOES NOT STAND FOR! It would be nice to have a new athiest come onto this board and not fit into every sterotype.

Edited January 15, 2010 by havok579257

[philbo]

[quote name='havok579257' date='15 January 2010 - 06:15 AM' timestamp='1263532546' post='2037554']
further proof you don't care about anything any of us say or what the church teaches, because once again you come off as the athiest who wants to ATTACk, yes ATTACk the catholic church without even understanding it. You obviously have no idea about the catholic church and what it teaches except what you know from other athiests. Cause its evident you have no clue what papal infallability is. The pope is not infallible 24/7. What the pope said about condoms in africa was not an infallible teaching. You come on here and bash the church yet you haven't even bothered to understand its most basic foundations. And you see why I stereotype athiests. Cause you just proved all the stereotypes right. [/quote]
My word, you are an insecure type, aren't you?

Maybe if you think I'm wrong about what Papal infallibility is, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why? Being wrong about some esoteric parts of a particular belief system and means all your prejudices about atheists are proved right? Are you *really* that shallow?

[quote name='havok579257' date='15 January 2010 - 06:15 AM' timestamp='1263532546' post='2037554']
Please either learn something about the catholic church from someone who is catholic and not anti-catholic or stop attack the church for things IT DOES NOT STAND FOR! It would be nice to have a new athiest come onto this board and not fit into every sterotype.
[/quote]
If you think I fit every atheist stereotype, please list them and we can tick them off individually.